[MD] Religion in MOQ's light.

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Lu, hope you are still connected. 

After the strenuous job of explaining consciousness I feel for a more 
"mundane" topic
 
3 Aug. you wrote:
 
> People who were raised (steeped) in a strong religion, culture, or
> philosophy, who have spent years studying, defending, absorbing it,
> have some advantages, and some disadvantages.

> The Jews had their law and their history all studied out and
> minutely understood. So when this Jesus guy came along, there was no
> way he fit into their picture. Whereas the "heathen nations" could
> easily say "he's god? OK!" Now, say the story was true, and he
> really was who he claimed to be - it meant a lot more when a Jew
> changed his way of thinking and accepted him into their system of
> thinking, than it did when a person who had been worshiping a rock
> all his life accepted it.
 
Agree, Jewdom was monotheism's stronghold in a sea of multi-theist 
mythologies (heathendom as seen by the Jews) and to accept a new 
god was out-right impossible, the Messiah figure was merely a 
political leader, Jews (and Muslims not the least) still regard 
Christendom as straying from the monotheist path and they may be 
right, but then - in a MOQ context - it also stray from the "social path".     

> On the one hand, the "heathen" has a much easier time believing, which
> leads to a simpler faith, but can also be questioned - they might
> believe anything! The faith of the Jew, on the other hand has all this
> history to strengthen it, but he might fall into the trap of over
> analysing the whole thing, setting up another structure of strict
> rules.

Strict rules, yes, Jewdom is the covenant - an agreement - and if the 
people kept their part of it Javeh would keep his and "their part" was -
still is - the rules and regulations, minutely worked out in their Book, 
there is nothing about "salvation by faith" or silent prayer in hearts or 
"closets", there is in fact nothing about soul, everything is external in 
the sense of there being no external/internal. And this is something 
that Islam continued, as I understand it Islam was a bulwark against 
the expanding Christendom (return of multitheism) after it being 
accepted by the Romans and the Jews were scattered.      

> It can work the same way here - Those of you who have been wrestling
> with SOM, MoQ, deep intellectualize-ation of ideas, perhaps with a
> history of accepting (or rebelling against) some religion. "Get it"
> (The MoQ, DQ, etc...) in a way that I never will. I'm more like those
> heathen. 

As you have understood the MOQ have not found its form. I stick to 
what I see as the original and crucial point, namely that it's 4th. 
intellectual level is the said "intellectualization" i.e. SOM or 
objectification, but there are those who se that level as a mental 
compartment where "ideas" reside, cave-man's "idea" of making 
stone tools were intellectual pattern by that definition. OK, this is not 
your interest, but why we must intellectualize is that MOQ is out of 
SOM - out of intellect - and must use intellect's value to "throw" 
intellect.   

> I recognize Truth, when I hear it, because it fits into my reality,
> like a puzzle peice falling into place. My understanding has some
> advantages over yours, because, recognizing the cadence and tempo of
> the poem I've been listening to my whole life, I recognize (what I
> call) truth, by how it fits into that poem. But those who have a much
> deeper, more intellectual understanding than I do have an advantage
> over me because you have the why, and the ability to understand and
> explain it on a deeper level. 

"Truth versus Appearance"" were the SOM or intellects first form 
(Socrates) and it struck me just now that Jesus' use of that term (I 
don't know the English version) "I am the truth...etc" shows his 
intellectual influence. The Judaism he were part of does not use that 
term as far as I know, nor does Islam (I may be wrong) like the 
heathens for example our Norse Myth never claims to be "true". 
People of old of course knew false from true, but had not conceived 
of the OBJECTIVE TRUTH that overrides Good (according to Pirsig).   

> In a way I am kind of a "nothing" person; I was not steeped in any
> religion, culture, country, or extended family. My family of Origin
> moved so much, between countries, the only strong unifying factor in my
> childhood was my parents (even my brother wasn't a steady part - him
> being sent off to boarding school in a different country). I have never
> felt like I "fit" anywhere I've ever been. It took a while for me to
> realize why. And I have peace with it. I married a misfit, and we are
> happily raising our misfit children. I'm too "religious" to fit in with
> the hippies, too hippy to fit in with the religious people. I'm too
> smart for the dumb people, and too dumb for the smart ones. It can get
> lonley at times, but what I do have is freedom. I'm not tied to having
> to protect any sacred cows, I can pick up an idea, examine it, and
> decide whether it has value or not, on it's own merits. 

Very, very interesting, "too religious to fit ... etc." I liked that.

Bodvar







 



> > 
> > You said: >but I try to keep the MOQ in its revolutionary vein.
> > 
> > And with this I completely agree.
> > 
> > I agree that where Christianity (along with all other religions)
> > went wrong was in losing the dynamic quality that it's instigator
> > gave to it. The river is the most beautiful when it's alive, when it
> > is free, when it is dangerous. As soon as you start building dams,
> > you make it safer and more user-friendly, but it will eventually
> > become stagnant and putrid if the water isn't allowed to flow
> > freely.
> > 
> > Thank you for engaging with me - it's much less lonley this way.
> > 
> > Lu
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>